Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2021) 37(2) 85-92

Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology
h t t p s : / / j o u r n a l s. c o p m a d r i d. o r g / j wo p

The Link Between Authentic Leadership, Organizational Dehumanization

and Stress at Work
Mario Sainza, Naira Delgadob, and Juan A. Morianoc
a
University of Monterrey, Mexico; bUniversidad de La Laguna, Spain; cUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain

ARTICLE INFO A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 3 October 2020
Accepted 18 March 2021
Available online 5 May 2021
Keywords:
Authentic leadership
Organizational dehumanization
Work imbalance
Organizational identification
Organizational dehumanization has detrimental consequences for workers’ well-being. Previous research has focused on
organizational factors that trigger workers’ dehumanization or stress at work. However, less is known about the factors
that can protect workers against the detrimental effects of dehumanization. In the present research, we performed a
correlational study (N = 930) and a direct replication of it (N = 913) to analyze 1) the mediation role of organizational
dehumanization in the relationship between authentic leadership and stress at work, and 2) the possible moderation of
organizational identification and the frequency of leader-follower interactions. The results indicated that higher authentic
leadership predicted lower organizational dehumanization and stress at work. Moreover, organizational dehumanization
mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and stress at work.
La relación entre el liderazgo auténtico, la deshumanización organizacional y el
estrés en el trabajo

Palabras clave:
Liderazgo auténtico
Deshumanización organizacional
Desequilibrio en el trabajo
Identificación con la organización
R E S U M E N
La deshumanización organizacional tiene efectos muy perjudiciales para el bienestar profesional. Estudios previos se han
centrado en identificar factores organizacionales que desencadenan la deshumanización de los trabajadores o el estrés en el
contexto laboral. Sin embargo, se conoce muy poco sobre los factores que pueden proteger a los trabajadores de los efectos
negativos de la deshumanización. En esta investigación llevamos a cabo un estudio correlacional (N = 930) y una replicación
directa (N = 913) para analizar 1) el papel mediador de la deshumanización organizacional en la relación entre liderazgo
organizacional y estrés en el trabajo y 2) la posible moderación de la identificación con la organización y la frecuencia de la
interacción líder-seguidores. Los resultados mostraron que un mayor nivel de liderazgo auténtico predecía un menor nivel de
deshumanización organizacional y de estrés en el trabajo. Además, la deshumanización organizacional media en la relación
entre liderazgo auténtico y estrés en el trabajo.

Workers’ perceptions of being treated and perceived as
objects or resources within their companies (i.e., organizational
dehumanization) have detrimental consequences for their well-
being (Caesens et al., 2017). Previous research has identified several
factors that could trigger workers’ (self- or other-)dehumanization.
Scholars have explored the effect of the status of a worker’s position
(Terskova & Agadullina, 2019; Valtorta et al., 2019a); the types of
tasks that workers carry out, such as routinized work, fragmentation
of activities, or dependence on machines (Andrighetto et al., 2017;
Bell & Khoury, 2011); supervisors’ emotional distance displayed
toward subordinates (e.g., Väyrynen & Laari-Salmela, 2018); and the
leadership styles that workers identify in their direct supervisors
(Caesens et al., 2018). Most of this previous research has focused on
factors that worsen workers’ daily routines and increase negative
psychological outcomes. Less is known, however, about factors that
can protect workers against the perception that they are treated as
resources (i.e., organizational dehumanization) and thus promote
employees’ well-being within their companies. Therefore, our aim
in the present research was to analyze a specific factor that could
improve workers’ well-being as they perform their daily routines.
Specifically, we focused on the possible protective influence that
a specific type of leadership can exert on workers: an authentic
leadership style (Walumbwa et al., 2008). This leadership style has
previously been identified as having positive outcomes in working
environments (e.g., Laschinger & Fida, 2014). Thus, we expected
that authentic leadership would reduce workers’ perception of

Cite this article as: Sainz, M., Delgado, N., & Moriano, J. A. (2021). The link between authentic leadership, organizational dehumanization and stress at work. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 37(2), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a9

Correspondence: ndelgado@ull.es (N. Delgado).

ISSN:1576-5962/© 2021 Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
86 M. Sainz et al. / Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2021) 37(2) 85-92
being dehumanized by the company, therefore creating conditions
in which workers will be less likely to suffer from stress when
performing their work routines.
Organizational Dehumanization
Dehumanization is one of the most serious and degrading forms
of social perception. It is a psychological phenomenon whereby
people perceive that other human beings are not fully human or
are less human than ingroup members (Haslam, 2006; Haslam &
Loughnan, 2014; Leyens et al., 2000). Dehumanization is a pervasive
phenomenon with blatant and subtle expressions, which could affect
a large number of groups (not just extremely negative outgroups) and
has important consequences in social interaction (Andrighetto et al.,
2014; Goff et al., 2008; Leidner et al., 2013). Despite the considerable
number of studies conducted in this field in the past two decades,
only recently have social psychologists begun to investigate this
phenomenon in the workplace (Christoff, 2014).
In working environments, previous evidence has mentioned
the construct of organizational dehumanization, which refers to
an employee’s perception of being mechanistically dehumanized
or objectified by the organization (e.g., Andrighetto et al., 2017;
Caesens et al., 2017). Workers in modern organizational settings
often report the extremely negative perception of being treated
as machines, numbers, or parts that can be replaced (e.g., Bell &
Khoury, 2011; Christoff, 2014). This dehumanized perception (i.e.,
organizational dehumanization) has been found to be associated
with several factors. Some are related to quality of work, such as the
types of tasks that workers carry out (Baldissarri et al., 2014, 2019),
the specific type of work they have to perform (e.g., dirty jobs;
Valtorta et al., 2019a, 2019b), or even the physical space in which
workers perform their activities (Taskin et al., 2019). Other factors
are related to the hierarchical relationship within the company,
such as power dynamics (Gwinn et al., 2013; Lammers & Stapel,
2011) or perceived leadership styles (Caesens et al., 2018). In this
regard, on the one hand, research has shown that the experience
of power triggers mental processes that lead to dehumanization:
people in situations of power have a reduced tendency to adopt
others’ points of view (Galinsky et al., 2006), maintain a greater
interpersonal distance (Lammers et al., 2011), and increase
the mechanisms of deindividualization (Dépret & Fiske, 1999;
Gruenfeld et al., 2008), which is closely linked to dehumanization
(Haslam & Bain, 2007). On the other hand, the role of supervision
and of perceived leadership styles could also be a key determinant
in triggering dehumanization at work. For instance, previous
evidence has highlighted that perceiving that a supervisor engages
in abusive behaviors, such as ridiculing employees, yelling at them,
or denigrating them (i.e., abusive supervisor; Tepper, 2000), leads
employees to feel dehumanized by their organization, which has
important consequences for turnover intentions, job satisfaction,
and affective commitment (Caesens et al., 2018). These findings
highlight the detrimental impact that abusive leaders can have
on workers’ satisfaction within their companies and also on their
personal well-being. Nevertheless, when addressing the role of
leadership styles in perceived organizational dehumanization,
the effects of other types of leadership, apart from abusive style,
on perceived organizational dehumanization, as well as the
consequences of this perception, have not been explored. The aim
of this research is to address the positive role that a particular
leadership style could play in ameliorating organizational
dehumanization, as well as its consequences. Specifically, we
focused on the role that an authentic leadership style (Walumbwa
et al., 2008) might have on workers’ perception that they are
dehumanized.
Influence of Supervisors on Workers: Authentic Leadership
Style
Perceived leadership style that workers identify in their direct
supervisor has a great influence not only on processes related to the
working environment (e.g., workers’ performance, job satisfaction,
turnover intentions) but also on an individual level (e.g., health
conditions, psychological distress, subjective well-being; Haslam
et al., 2011). Hence, the range of detrimental consequences that
could potentially arise when workers are under the supervision of
destructive (Einarsen et al., 2007) or abusive (Tepper, 2000) leaders
could be wide. However, certain leadership styles can have a positive
influence on workers by shaping the quality of their immediate
work environments, which can improve their job satisfaction and
well-being (Ding & Yu, 2020; Kuoppala et al., 2008). This, in turn,
encourages workers to voluntarily contribute to organizational goals
achievement (Reicher et al., 2005).
One of the leadership styles that has a potentially positive impact,
both on workers and on organizations, is authentic leadership style.
According to the authentic leadership model (Moriano et al., 2009;
Walumbwa et al., 2008), authentic leaders are able to create positive
work environments and ethical climates by acting in ways that are
consistent with their self-concepts, show moral character, and are
concerned with follower development (and not their own interests;
Jex & Britt, 2014). Based on the positive organizational psychology
literature, authentic leaders are supposed to foster self-awareness
(e.g., knowledge about their strengths and limitations as leaders, and
their ability to influence others), an internalized moral perspective
displayed on a daily basis (e.g., ability to behave according to their
values), the balanced processing of information (e.g., taking into
account others’ opinions), and transparency in the relationship
between leaders and their employees (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Simply put, authentic leaders are those who try to maintain internal
coherence between their moral values and their behaviors, or who
have transparent and sincere relationships with their employees
that promote employees’ well-being (Gardner et al., 2005; Gardner
et al., 2011). Previous research has highlighted the positive
consequences that being in contact with authentic leaders may have
on employees. For instance, it improves the overall performance
capability of the organization (Banks et al., 2016; Lyubovnikova et
al., 2017); increases job satisfaction (Azanza et al., 2013); boosts
organizational commitment or work happiness (Jensen & Luthans,
2006); decreases turnover intentions (Azanza et al., 2015); and even
promotes intrapreneurial behaviors among workers (Edú-Valsania et
al., 2016). In general terms, the presence of an authentic leadership
style within a company seems to act as a protective factor by not
only promoting employees’ well-being but also providing positive
outcomes for the company (i.e., lower worker turnover).
A well-developed stream of research links perceived social
support from a leader to lower levels of perceived work stress (e.g.,
Van Dierendonck et al., 2004). Positive forms of leadership, such as
an authentic leadership style, can help employees to feel engaged
and supported in their jobs (Azanza et al., 2015; Martínez et al.,
2020). In addition, they are associated with lower levels of stress
in the workplace (Skakon et al., 2010). Furthermore, authentic
leaders’ transparency and internalized moral perspective increase
trust among subordinates. Progressively, trust generates security
in interactions, which, in turn, decreases stress (Molero et al.,
2019; Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015). By recognizing and rewarding
employees for their work, leaders can encourage them to believe in
themselves and thus resolve the effort-reward imbalance at work
(Weiß & Süß, 2016).
Therefore, in the present project, we proposed that an
authentic leadership style will protect workers against the
negative effects of organizational environment on their well-
being by promoting the perception that they are regarded
 Authentic Leadership and Dehumanization 87

and treated as human beings and not as mere resources or Table 1. Participant Demographics and Employment Details from Studies 1 and 2
machines within their companies. Specifically, we focused on a Study 1 (N = 930) Study 2 (N = 913)
psychological outcome that has not been previously addressed Participant age (mean and SD) 39.22 (10.01) 39.17 (10.05)
in the study of organizational dehumanization: stress at work Participant gender (%)
(Siegrist et al., 2004). In light of the above, we considered Female 56.50 52.8
possible stress at work to be another negative outcome for Male 43.30 47.2
workers. However, the presence of stress at work might be Other 0.20
reduced when authentic leadership is identified, and perceived Participant educational level (%)
organizational dehumanization might decrease.
Basic education 7.80 8.10
High school/vocational training 33.60 34.60
Overview University degree and above 54.80 54.30
Other 3.70 3.00
Our main goal is to analyze the extent to which an authentic Type of institution (%)
leadership style acts as a protective factor against organizational Public 35.80 37.10
dehumanization and stress at work. We also wish to examine if Private 60.40 60.60
the possible relationship between authentic leadership and stress Other 1.30 2.30
at work could be mediated by organizational dehumanization. Organization size (%)
Previous studies have shown that organizational dehumanization Small 31.60 31.10
is influenced by employee-organization relationship. Specifically, Middle 41.80 26.10
Caesens et al. (2017) showed that high levels of perceived Large 25.30 42.20
organizational support (POS) diminished organizational Other 1.30 0.70
dehumanization perceptions among employees, and Caesens
Group size
et al. (2018) explored the role of abusive supervision style in
Fewer than 10 co-workers 34.30 33.70
organizational dehumanization. The current study continues and
Between 10 and 50 co-workers 52.90 52.60
expands previous research in the field, focusing on employee-
More than 50 co-workers 12.80 13.70
leader relationship. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that an
authentic leadership style will negatively correlate with workers’
perceptions of organizational dehumanization and stress at work Measures. Once the participants had agreed to participate, they
(Hypotheses 1 & 2). Moreover, we also expect that the relationship were presented with the following information:
between an authentic leadership style and stress at work will be Authentic leadership style. An adapted Spanish version of the
mediated by perceived organizational dehumanization (Hypothesis Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008) was
3). Finally, as previous research has shown, higher identification used (Moriano et al., 2011). The adapted scale was composed of 16
with the company and greater contact with company’s leader are items (α = .95) organized in four subscales: relational transparency
two of the most common variables that could shape the strength (five items, e.g., “My leader openly shares information with others”,
of the relationship we tested (e.g., Edú-Valsania et al., 2016). Thus, α = .86), internalized moral perspective (four items, e.g., “My leader
the possible moderation of the role of organization identification is guided in his/her actions by internal moral standards”, α = .83),
(moderator 1) and the perceived frequency of leader-follower balanced processing (three items, e.g., “My leader encourages others
interactions (moderator 2) were explored in the aforementioned to voice opposing points of view”, α = .85), and self-awareness (four
relations (i.e., the effect that an authentic leadership style has items, e.g., “My leader is clearly aware of the impact he/she has on
on both organizational dehumanization [Hypotheses 4a & 4b]/ others”, α = .87). Participants reported the extent to which their direct
stress at work [Hypotheses 5a & 5b]). We collected a large sample supervisors engaged in these behaviors or attitudes. We computed a
of workers to address our goal. Then, we split the sample in two general scale based on the average of the items. The answers provided
groups to perform a first study that allowed us to explore the ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (always).
relationship between the variables, and a direct replication of this Organizational dehumanization. Participants indicated the
study to confirm the pattern of results. Participants were randomly extent to which they considered that their organizations considered
assigned to the studies. Data and materials implemented in these them to be resources, by using 11 items (e.g., “My organization
studies can be found online (osf.io/b5vd3/). considers me to be a number”, α = .92) from Caesens et al. (2017).
We computed a general scale based on the average of the items.
Study 1 The answers provided ranged from 0 (completely disagree) to 6
(completely agree).
In this study, we aimed to analyze the extent to which perceived Stress at work. To measure stress at work, we included 15 items
authentic leadership style protects workers from feeling that they from Siegrist et al. (2004). This scale differentiated between extrinsic
are mere resources in their companies and how this helps them effort (five items, e.g., “Over the past few years, my job has become
to maintain an adequate effort-reward balance when performing more and more demanding”, α = .78) and reward factors (10 items,
their daily tasks (i.e., stress at work). Preregistration of hypotheses e.g., “Considering all of my efforts and achievements, I receive the
can be found online (osf.io/b8s24). respect and prestige I deserve at work”, α = .79). To capture the
possible imbalance between workers’ efforts and the rewards they
Method receive during their daily routines (i.e., stress at work), a score was
calculated by dividing the former factor by the latter (higher scores
Participants. Sample size was calculated by using G-power reflect more stress at work).
analysis for a small effect size in a regression model (Faul et al., 2009). Organizational identification. Identification with the company
A minimum of 652 participants was required (one predictor, f2 = .02, was measured using eight items (e.g., “When someone criticizes my
α = .05, 95% power). The final sample was composed of 930 Spanish organization, I feel personally insulted”, α = .87; Mael & Ashforth,
workers (see Table 1 for a detailed description of the sample) from 1992). We computed a general scale based on the average of the
the general population. items. Answers ranged from 0 (not at all) to 6 (completely).
88 M. Sainz et al. / Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2021) 37(2) 85-92

Perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions. The frequency
of contact with the direct supervisor was measured using five items
(e.g., “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, α = .74; Azanza
et al., 2018). We computed a general scale based on the average of the
items. The answers provided ranged from 0 (never) to 6 (every day).
Finally, participants provided some demographic information
(age, gender) and a variety of measures related to the characteristics
of their institutions (type of institution and size of the organization).
Procedure. Participants completed a paper-and-pen question-
naire that included the variables of interest in this study, at the end
of which a section with sociodemographic variables was included.
To recruit participants, we used an exponential non-discriminati-
ve snowball sampling. First, we contacted the students of a master
in occupational risk prevention at a Spanish University to request
their participation in this study, provided they met two conditions:
1) they belonged to a work group of at least four employees, even if
they did not perform similar jobs or functions, and 2) the group was
coordinated by the same leader. These workers then asked their
coworkers to collaborate in this study and gave them a pack con-
taining a document requesting their participation and providing
instructions, and stressing anonymity and confidentiality of their
responses; the questionnaire itself; and an envelope to return the
completed material to the coworker who handed it out to them.
The time needed to complete the questionnaire ranged from 15 to
30 minutes.
Results
First, we computed descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
among measures included in the study (Table 2). Results indicated
that authentic leadership was negatively related to organizational
dehumanization and to stress at work, but positively related to
organizational identification and to the perceived frequency of leader-
follower interaction. Second, we calculated regression analyses to
identify the predictive capability of an authentic leadership style in
organizational dehumanization and in stress at work (Table 3). The
results showed that, as expected, authentic leadership negatively
predicted organizational dehumanization and stress at work.
Thus, the more people perceived that their supervisors engaged
in an authentic leadership style, the more they felt that they were
treated as humans by their organizations, and the lower the levels
of stress they reported when performing their jobs (supporting our
Hypotheses 1 and 2). This effect remained significant even when
including organizational identification and the perceived frequency
of leader-follower interactions in regression analysis.
Finally, we computed mediation analyses to test the indirect
effect of organizational dehumanization in the relationship between
authentic leadership and stress at work, by using PROCESS (model
4, bootstrapping 10,000 samples, 95% CI; Hayes, 2018; Figure 1).
Results indicated that organizational dehumanization partially
mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and stress
at work (indirect effect = -.14, SE = .02, 95% CI [-.18, -.11]), supporting
Hypothesis 3. Additionally, we computed a moderated moderation
analysis by using organizational identification (moderator 1) and the
perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions (moderator 2) as
moderators in the relationship between an authentic leadership style
and organizational dehumanization/stress at work (PROCESS, model
10, bootstrapping 10,000 samples, 95% CI; Figure 2). On the one
hand, results regarding moderation of organizational identification
indicated that interactions between authentic leadership and
organizational identification were not significant (interaction effect
= -.04, SE = .03, p = .124; 95% CI [-.10, .01]). Thus, we did not identify
the expected moderation effect of organizational identification on
organizational dehumanization (Hypothesis 4a). Moreover, results
indicated that the interaction between authentic leadership and
organizational identification did not moderate the effect on stress
at work (interaction effect = .04, SE = .03, p = .183; 95% CI [-.02, .09]),
in opposition to our moderation Hypothesis 4b. On the other hand,
results regarding moderation of the perceived frequency of leader-
follower interactions indicated that the interaction between this
variable and authentic leadership in organizational dehumanization
was not significant (interaction effect = -.02, SE = .03, p = .602; 95% CI
[-.07, .04]). The same is true for the interaction between this variable
and authentic leadership in stress at work (interaction effect = -.01,

Table 2. Descriptive Analysis and Correlations for the Variables Included in Studies 1 and 2
Mean (SD) Study 1 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 3 4 5 Mean (SD) Study 2
Authentic leadership 3.46 (1.24) - .92** .90** .89** .91** -.41** -.26** .37** .41** 3.44 (1.24)
Relational transparency 3.59 (1.31) .92** - .77** .74** .76** -.36** -.20** .31** .34** 3.58 (1.32)
Internalized moral perspective 3.63 (1.32) .90** .78** - .75** .75** -.36** -.24** .33** .38** 3.57 (1.30)
Balanced processing 3.30 (1.49) .90** .75** .75** - .79** -.40** -.24** .33** .38** 3.31 (1.49)
Self-awareness 3.26 (1.40) .91** .75** .74** .81** - -.39** -.26** .36** .37** 3.22 (1.41)
Organizational dehumanization 3.24 (1.39) -.42** -.40** -.35** -.38** -.40** - .36** -.35** -.20** 3.27 (1.39)
Stress at work 1.34 (1.34) -.28** -.28** -.23** -.24** -.27** .34** - -.17** -.05 1.28 (1.05)
Organizational identification 3.60 (1.23) .39** .33** .36** .36** .37** -.34** -.14** - .25** 3.63 (1.24)
Leader–follower interactions 3.02 (1.35) .37** .35** .32** .36** .33** -.22** -.05 .23** - 2.98 (1.37)
Note. Results below the diagonal are for Study 1, and results above the diagonal are for Study 2.
**
p < .01.

Table 3. Multiple Regression Analyses of Authentic Leadership Factors on 1) Organizational Dehumanization and 2) Stress at Work, including Organizational
Identification and Perceived Frequency of Leader-Follower Interactions as Control Variables, for Studies 1 and 2
Study 1 Study 2
Organizational dehumanization Stress at work Organizational dehumanization Stress at work
F(3, 929) = 86.3**, F(3, 929) = 40.23**, F(3, 911) = 82.98**, F(3, 911) = 24.4**, R2 = .07,
R2 = .22, R2cv = .22 R2 = .12, R2cv = .11 R2 = .21, R2cv = .21 R2cv = .07
β (SE) 95% CI β (SE) 95% CI β (SE) 95% CI β (SE) 95% CI
Authentic leadership -.36 (.04)** [-.43, -.28] -.13 (.01)** [-.16, -.10] -.36 (.04)** [-.44, -.29] -.10 (.01)** [-.13, -.08]
Organizational identification -.23 (.04)** [-.30, -.16] -.01 (.01) [-.03, .01] -.25 (.04)** [-.32, -.18] -.01 (.01) [-.04, .01]
Leader-follower interactions -.05 (.03) [-.12, .01] .05 (.01) *
[.03, .08] -.02 (.03) [-.08, .05] .04 (.01)** [.02, .06]
Note. Coefficients are non-standardized.
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01.
 Authentic Leadership and Dehumanization 89

SE = .03, p = .632; 95% CI [-.07, .04]). Both results seem to indicate that identification or perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions did
perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions did not have a not have a clear role in moderating previously identified relationships
moderating effect, thus rejecting our Hypotheses 5a and 5b. In short, among variables. Based on these results, it seems that authentic
based on these results, we concluded that neither organizational leadership protects workers against stress at work by making them
identification (moderated mediation effect = -.01, SE = .01, 95% CI feel that they are valued as humans (avoiding perceived treatments as
[-.04, .01]) nor perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions machine-like) within their companies.
(moderated mediation effect = -.00, SE = .01, 95% CI [-.03, .02]) Thus, based on present evidence, we can conclude that
exerted a consistent moderated mediation effect on the relationship this leadership style has a positive influence on workers by
between authentic leadership and organizational dehumanization/ protecting them against pervasive consequences of organizational
stress at work. dehumanization. However, even when this study highlights
possible practical implications, such as the need to promote this
Organizational positive leadership style to confront destructive (Einarsen et al.,
dehumanization 2007) or abusive (Caesens et al., 2018) styles, the exploratory nature
of this study could be a limitation in terms of support for the effect
we identified. Therefore, to provide more empirical evidence that
-.41** -.42** .33** .33** allows us to confirm the protective role of an authentic leadership
style, we conducted a preregistered direct replication of our own
-.30** (-.16**) study (e.g., Lindsay, 2017) to test and confirm the same hypothesis
Authentic
Stress at work from this study with a second sample of workers.
leadership -.24** (-.11*)

Figure 1. Simple Mediation Analysis of Organizational Dehumanization in

Study 2
the Relationship between Athentic Leadership and Stress at Work for Study
1 (coefficients are reported inside the figure) and Study 2 (coefficients are In this study, we aimed to confirm the protective role of an
reported outside the figure). Direct effect including the mediator are in authentic leadership style in organizational dehumanization
brackets. Coefficients are standardized. and stress at work, which we identified in the previous study,
*p < .05, **p < .01.
by providing a direct replication of our previous study. Thus, we
carried out this confirmatory study by using the same procedure
as in the previous study to confirm that an authentic leadership
Organizational
identification style negatively predicts workers’ perceptions of organizational
dehumanization (Hypothesis 1) and stress at work (Hypothesis 2).
Organizational Additionally, we aimed to confirm that perceived organizational
-.21** dehumanization dehumanization mediates the relationship between authentic
leadership and stress at work (Hypothesis 3). Finally, we aimed
-.32** .35** to replicate the absence of a consistent moderating effect of both
identification with the organization (moderator 1, Hypotheses 4a
and 4b) and perceived frequency of leader–follower interactions
Authentic -.23** (moderator 2, Hypotheses 5a and 5b) in the aforementioned
Stress at work
leadership relationships. The preregistration of the procedure and hypotheses
of this confirmatory study can be found online (osf.io/jy8ve).
.17** .04

-.05
Leader-follower
interactions
Figure 2. Moderated Mediation of Organizational Identification (moderator 1)
and Perceived Frequency of Leader-Follower Interactions (moderator 2) in the
Relationship between an Authentic Leadership Style and Sress at Work that
is Mediated by Organizational Dehumanization, for Study 1. Coefficients are
standardized.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
Discussion
We performed a study to analyze the predictive ability of
authentic leadership on organizational dehumanization and stress
at work. The results, as expected, highlighted that perceiving an
authentic leadership style within their supervisors predicted a
lower tendency among workers to consider that their companies
regarded them as tools for achieving companies’ goals. Moreover,
perceiving this leadership style among their supervisors was also
related to an adequate balance between efforts made by workers
during their daily routines and rewards they received for their
performance (i.e., lower levels of stress at work).
In addition, the results indicated that perceived organizational
dehumanization partially mediated the relationship between perceived
authentic leadership and stress at work. Meanwhile, organizational
Method
Participants. We applied the same sample size calculation as in
the previous study (minimum participants = 652; one predictor,
f2 = .02, α = .05, 95% power). The final sample was composed of 913
workers (482 women, 431 men, Mage = 39.16, SD = 10.05) drawn from
the general population (see Table 1 for full details). The procedure was
identical to that of the previous study.
Measures. Once the participants had agreed to participate, they
were presented with the same measures as in the previous study:
authentic leadership style (α = .95) (relational transparency, α =
.85; internalized moral perspective, α = .80; balanced processing, α
= .83; and self-awareness, α = .87), organizational dehumanization
(α = .92), stress at work (extrinsic effort, α = .79; reward factors, α =
.77), organizational identification (α = .86), and perceived frequency
of leader-follower interactions (α = .75). Finally, participants
answered the demographic information and questions related to the
characteristics of their institutions as in the previous study.
Procedure. We followed the same data collection procedure as in
Study 1.
Results
First, as in previous study, we computed descriptive statistics and
bivariate correlations among the measures included in the study
90 M. Sainz et al. / Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2021) 37(2) 85-92
(Table 2). The results replicated previous findings, as authentic
leadership was negatively related to organizational dehumanization
and stress at work, whereas it was positively related to organizational
identification and to the perceived frequency of leader-follower
interactions. Second, results from regression analyses identified
the expected pattern of results: authentic leadership negatively
predicted organizational dehumanization and stress at work, even
when including moderator variables in the model (Hypotheses 1 and
2, Table 3).
Finally, we computed mediation analyses to test the indirect
effect of organizational dehumanization in the relationship
between authentic leadership and stress at work as in the
previous study (PROCESS; model 4, bootstrapping 10,000 samples,
95% CI; Figure 1). The results indicated that organizational
dehumanization partially mediated the relationship between
authentic leadership and stress at work (indirect effect = -.14,
SE = .01, 95% CI [-.18, -.10]), thus confirming Hypothesis 3.
Moreover, we also computed moderated mediation analyses by
using organizational identification (moderator 1) and perceived
frequency of leader-follower interactions (moderator 2) in the
relationship between an authentic leadership style and stress
at work (mediated by organizational dehumanization) as in
the previous study (PROCESS, model 10, bootstrapping 10,000
samples, 95% CI; Figure 3). The results indicated the interaction
between authentic leadership and organizational identification in
organizational dehumanization was significant (interaction effect
= -.05, SE = .03, p = .044; 95% CI [-.11, -.01]), and the interaction
between authentic leadership and organizational identification in
stress at work was not significant (interaction effect = .01, SE =
.02, p = .616; 95% CI [-.04, .06]), supporting Hypotheses 4a but
not 4b. Moreover, results indicated that there was no significant
effect of the interaction of authentic leadership and perceived
frequency on leader-follower interactions when predicting both
organizational dehumanization (interaction effect = .01, SE = .03,
p = .891; 95% CI [-.06, .06]) and stress at work (interaction effect
= -.03, SE = .03, p = .390; 95% CI [-.09, .03]). Thus, Hypotheses 5a
and 5b were rejected. In short, in this study, we did not identify a
moderated mediation of organizational identification (moderated
mediation effect = -.02, SE = .01; 95% CI [-.04, -.01]), nor of
perceived frequency of leader-follower interactions (moderated
mediation effect = -.00, SE = .01; 95% CI [-.01, .02]).
Organizational
identification
Organizational
-.23**
dehumanization
-.33** .35**
Authentic -.17**
Stress at work
leadership
.13* .05
-.02
Leader-follower
interactions
Figure 3. Moderated Mediation of Organizational Identification (moderator 1)
and Perceived Frequency of Leader-Follower Interactions (moderator 2) in the
Relationship between an Authentic Leadership Style and Stress at Work that
is Mediated by Organizational Dehumanization, for Study 2 (confirmatory).
Coefficients are standardized.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
Discussion
In this study, we carried out a confirmatory study with similar
results to the ones we identified before: authentic leadership
protects workers against organizational dehumanization and
promotes the balance between efforts and rewards workers
received when performing their daily routines (i.e., less stress at
work). In addition, as expected, organizational dehumanization
partially mediated the relationship between authentic leadership
and stress at work. Meanwhile, this mediation analysis seems to
not be moderated by workers identification or contact with leaders.
Thus, authentic leadership might have a particularly positive effect
on workers who identify with their companies.
General Discussion
The purpose of this research was to explore the relationship between
an authentic leadership style and organizational dehumanization
perceptions. Particularly, we aimed to explore whether (a)
authentic leadership is a protective factor against organizational
dehumanization perceptions and stress at work, (b) organizational
dehumanization mediates the relationship between an authentic
leadership style and stress at work, and (c) there is a moderating role
of workers’ identification with the company and perceived frequency
of leader-follower interactions in the relationships between an
authentic leadership style, organizational dehumanization, and
stress at work. Our results are consistent with previous literature on
social exchange relationships in the workplace, which indicates that
treatment received from the supervisor impacts overall perceptions of
the organization (e.g., Molero et al., 2019; Shoss et al., 2013).
Moreover, these findings expand the growing literature on
organizational dehumanization and confirm the relevant role of
supervision styles in organizational dehumanization, which has been
previously addressed (Caesens et al., 2018; Christoff, 2014). Specifically,
our research contributes to the identification of protective factors that
reduce organizational dehumanization. This pattern of findings is
complementary to previous research on an abusive leadership style,
which promotes perceptions of being valued uniquely as a tool for the
company and has detrimental consequences for workers’ well-being
(Caesens et al., 2018). Our data indicated that an authentic leadership
style fuels perceptions of being regarded and recognized as a human
being within the company, thus promoting positive outcomes among
workers (i.e., less stress at work). In general, both leadership styles
(i.e., abusive and authentic) addressed in relation to perceived
organizational dehumanization have opposite and complementary
consequences for workers. Thus, it might be possible that both
leadership styles represent different extremes of the same construct:
negative behaviors or attitudes of an abusive leader (Tepper, 2000)
could be the opposite of positive behaviors or attitudes that authentic
leadership displays within a company (Walumbwa et al., 2008). To
provide evidence of the possible complementary role of both abusive
and authentic leadership styles, further research is required.
Implications of these findings should also be taken into account.
Previous research addressed the need to eliminate or lower abusive
or destructive attitudes and behaviors among supervisors to reduce
perceived organizational dehumanization (Caesens et al., 2017, 2018).
However, the absence of these detrimental factors (i.e., abusive
behaviors or attitudes) does not imply that the working environment
will potentially fulfill workers’ needs or promote their well-being.
Only by actively promoting attitudes and behaviors that correspond
with an authentic leadership style will workers fulfill their needs
(Azanza et al., 2013; 2015). In this sense, organizations should be
interested in increasing awareness among their managers regarding
the importance of their roles, and the promotion of a quality of
life and positive attitudes toward everyone’s job. As organizational
 Authentic Leadership and Dehumanization
agents, they are responsible for perceptions and attitudes toward the
entire organization.
Despite the fundamental role played by leadership in workers’
well-being and performance in the organization, we acknowledge that
in the present data, organizational dehumanization has only a partial
effect on the relationship between perceived authentic leadership
and stress at work. Moreover, we are aware that the protective role of
an authentic leadership style could be potentially undermined when
workers perceive that they lack other key factors within working
environments. We take into account that workers’ well-being and
performance are triggered by several factors, such as status of their
positions (Valtorta et al., 2019a), their working conditions, types
of tasks they are assigned (Andrighetto et al., 2017; Taskin et al.,
2019), or relationships with their co-workers (Reicher et al., 2005).
Further research is needed to establish the extent to which authentic
leadership can protect workers, even when other detrimental
conditions are present, such as dehumanized environments or
workers performing objectifying (i.e., repetitive, fragmented) tasks.
By comparing the role of these variables as predictors of similar
outcomes, or by analyzing the extent to which these processes could
act as underlying mechanisms in the relationships studied, we should
be able to provide a more complex view of the protective role of an
authentic leadership style.
Interestingly, covariates did not have a major effect on the
relationships tested. On the one hand, workers’ identification with
their companies did not moderate the relationship between authentic
leadership and organizational dehumanization at work. Future
research could clarify whether both positive and negative supervision
styles have a more intense effect on organizational dehumanization
in workers with high levels of identification with their companies. On
the other hand, contact with leaders did not show a moderation effect
on mediation analysis. This result could show that in order to exert a
positive leadership style it is not necessary to establish higher levels
of contact with workers. Contact would not be a relevant condition to
increase the relationship between an authentic leadership style and
organizational dehumanization. However, the role of contact in the
relationship between an abusive leadership style and organizational
dehumanization could be more relevant. Thus, more research is
necessary to confirm the absence of the relationship between contact
with leaders, leadership style, and organizational dehumanization.
Nevertheless, we are aware of the limitations of this research.
First, the present work would have benefitted from addressing more
psychological consequences apart from stress at work (e.g., turnover
intentions, mental health issues, performance; Salgado et al., 2019) so
as to reinforce our argument about the protective role of an authentic
leadership style against organizational dehumanization. Second, even
though the two studies were conducted with a large number of workers
from different organizations, and although we consistently identified
the same pattern of results, we also acknowledge the correlational
nature of our research. Future studies could enrich present results by
experimentally manipulating leadership style (i.e., authentic vs. non-
authentic) to generate experimental evidence that confirms our results
and leads us to explore the causal link between variables.
In short, the present research identified the role of authentic
leadership in promoting workers’ well-being and in protecting them
against detrimental consequences of perceiving that they are treated
as less than human within their organizations. This study makes a
significant contribution to the body of knowledge of the relation
between employees’ well-being, organizational dehumanization,
and leadership style. The implications of this research study for
management supervision and training in leadership styles are
important. Even when detrimental leadership styles or conditions
affect workers, these findings highlight the need to refocus our
attention not only on factors that hurt workers but also on those that
actively promote their recognition as human beings.
91
Conflict of Interest
The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
References
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Lattanzio, S., Loughnan, S., & Volpato, C. (2014).
Humanitarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to
help after natural disasters. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3),
573-584. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12066
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., & Volpato, C. (2017). (Still) modern times:
Objectification at work. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1),
25-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2190
Azanza, G., Gorgievski, M., Moriano, J., & Molero, F. (2018). Influencing
salespeople’s work outcomes through authentic leadership. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 39(7), 926-944. https://doi.
org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0113
Azanza, G., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2013). Authentic leadership and
organizational culture as drivers of employees’ job satisfaction. Revista
de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 29(2), 45-50. https://
doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a7
Azanza, G., Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., & Lévy Mangin, J. P. (2015). The effects of
authentic leadership on turnover intention. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 36(8), 955-971. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-
2014-005
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2014). When work does not
ennoble man: Psychological consequences of working objectification.
TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology,
21(3), 327-339. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.7
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2019). Feeling like an object: A
field study on working self-objectification and belief in personal free
will. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology,
26(2), 185-197. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM26.2.1
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-
analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test
for redundancy. Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
Bell, C. M., & Khoury, C. (2011). Dehumanization, deindividuation, anomie
and organizational justice. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.),
Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics, research
in social issues in management (vol. 7, pp. 169-200). Information Age
Publishing.
Caesens, G., Nguyen, N., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). Abusive supervision and
organizational dehumanization. Journal of Business and Psychology,
34(5), 709-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9592-3
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin S., & De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived
organizational support and employees’ well-being: the mediating
role of organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
9432X.2017.1319817
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some
scientific and ethical considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
8(748), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748
Dépret, E. F., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Perceiving the powerful: Intriguing
individuals versus threatening groups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 35(5), 461-480. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1380
Ding, H., & Yu, E. (2020). Follower strengths-based leadership and follower
innovative behavior: The roles of core self-evaluations and psychological
well-being. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(2), 103-
110. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a8
Edú-Valsania, S., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and
employee knowledge sharing behavior: Mediation of the innovation
climate and workgroup identification. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 37(4), 487-506. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-
2014-0149
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership
behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly,
18(3), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power
analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power
and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005).
Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and
follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership
Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not
yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and
92 M. Sainz et al. / Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2021) 37(2) 85-92
contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(2), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.292
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and
the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111
Gwinn, J. D., Judd C. M., & Park, B. (2013). Less power = less human? Effects of
power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49(3), 464-70. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-254. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr1003_4
Haslam, N., & Bain, P. (2007). Humanizing the self: Moderators
of the attribution of lesser humanness to others. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 57-68. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167206293191
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization.
Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-010213-115045
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Platow, M. (2011). The new psychology of
leadership: Identity, influence, and power. Psychology Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact
on employees’ attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 27(8), 646-666. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610709273
Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2014). Organizational psychology: A scientist-
practitioner approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vainio, H. (2008). Leadership, job
well-being, and health effects – a systematic review and a meta-
analysis. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 50(8),
904-915. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817e918d
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2011). Power
increases social distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
3(3), 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611418679
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113-126. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1368430210370042
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the
effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and
occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739-753. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
59432X.2013.804646
Leidner, B., Castano, E., & Ginges, J. (2013). Dehumanization, retributive
and restorative justice, and aggressive versus diplomatic intergroup
conflict resolution strategies. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
39(2), 181-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472208
Leyens, J. P., Paladino, P. M., Rodríguez, R. T., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodríguez,
A. P., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The role of
secondary emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2),
186-197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Preregistered direct replications in psychological
science. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1191-1192. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797617718802
Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How
authentic leadership influences team performance: The mediating role
of team reflexivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 59-70. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2692-3
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813-824. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004002
Martínez, I. M., Salanova, M., & Cruz-Ortiz, V. (2020). Our boss is a good
boss! Cross-level effects of transformational leadership on work
engagement in service jobs. Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 36(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a10
Molero, F. , Mikulincer, M. , Shaver, P. R. , Laguía, A. , & Moriano, J. A. (2019).
The development and validation of the Leader as Security Provider
Scale. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(3), 183-193.
https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a20
Moriano, J. A., Topa, G., & Lévy, J. P. (2009). Leadership in nonprofit
organizations of Nicaragua and El Salvador: A study from the social
identity theory. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(02), 667-676.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600002031
Moriano, J., Molero, F., & Mangin, J. P. (2011). Liderazgo auténtico: concepto
y validación del cuestionario ALQ en España. Psicothema, 23(2), 336-
341.
Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership and
employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 363-377. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/24703545
Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the
dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents
in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4),
547-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007
Salgado, J. F., Blanco, S., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Subjective well-being and
job performance: Testing of a suppressor effect. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.5093/
jwop2019a9
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013).
Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of
perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational
embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158-168. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0030687
Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I.,
& Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at
work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58(8), 1483-
1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00351-4
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders’ well-being,
behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their
employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work &
Stress, 24(2), 107-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.495262
Taskin, L., Parmentier, M., & Stinglhamber, F. (2019). The dark side of
office designs: Towards de-humanization. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 34(3), 262-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12150
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Terskova, M. A., & Agadullina, E. R. (2019). Dehumanization of dirty
workers and attitudes toward social support. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 49(12), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12633
Valtorta, R. R., Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2019a).
Dirty jobs and dehumanization of workers. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 58(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12315
Valtorta, R. R., Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2019b). The
dirty side of work: Biologization of physically tainted workers.
International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 1-13. https://doi.
org/10.5334/irsp.213
Van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership
behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9(2), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.165
Väyrynen, T., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2018). Men, mammals, or machines?
Dehumanization embedded in organizational practices. Journal of
Business Ethics, 147(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
015-2947-z
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson,
S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a
theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
Weiß, E., & Süß, S. (2016). The relationship between transformational
leadership and effort-reward imbalance. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 37(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-
08-2014-0146
Copyright of Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones is the property of
Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.